Ackley's Handbook #1 & 2 Available!

[Marco Califo]

Ackley's handbook #1 & 2 are "out of print" and possibly available on Amazon for $150 and up for used condition.

Alternatively, I came across this vendor who will print "on-demand" these books and many others. They make a new bound paperback book for you, and it costs around $30, shipped. I ordered both for $63.50. I do not know how long they take.

Cornell Publications
[email protected]
http://www.cornellpubs.com
810-225-3075

[steveno]

I think I paid around $15 for both books (hardback) 30+ years ago.

[Peter M. Eick]

Sounds about right. I know my copies were cheap when I bought them. Few seemed to recognize Ackley's wisdom at the time.

[jaguarxk120]

Many still don't today.

[SHR970]

Wise in many areas but he was also one of the original Fudd's.

Ref. Vol II Page 121 cartridge 223.

[Slamfire]

P.O Ackley’s handbooks are interesting from a historical perspective but contain dangerous , unscientific results and conclusions. I bought them because I was interested in the strength of old military actions and heard he blew a number of them up.

Unfortunately he used his 270 Magnum cartridge, Hi Vel #2 , did not use a pressure gage, so his results don’t really translate into something where you can say “a M98 can withstand this much pressure”. You can somewhat compare the results between actions, but since the real limit on “action strength” is the cartridge case, and the “stronger” actions support the cartridge case better, his tests are very limited beyond the entertainment value.

His load data was published in an era where chronographs were few so there is a lot of data on how much powder it takes to get a velocity. Since this is not pressure tested in anyway, copying some of that data will surely result in blown primers if not blown rifles.

The section on his Ackley Improved cartridges, and his “proof” that straight taper cartridges reduce bolt thrust is totally useless and potentially dangerous.

Cases don’t act as wedges or inclines. Unfortunately they stretch. They don’t carry load, or should not carry load, when they are expected to carry load, as in the Lee Enfield, they inevitably fail at some condition; cases are simply a gas seal.

At the time ole PO was selling his Ackley improved (AI) cartridges, he was blowing out the shoulders, straightening the case, to increase powder capacity and raising pressures. It is obvious that ole PO was taking flak from folks who were claiming that his high pressure cartridges were overstressing the action.

Savants on other forums give out a rule of thumb that a 40% increase in case volume provides a 10% velocity increase, implicit is the assumption that this is isobaric. This may be a crude rule of thumb, and I have done nothing to verify this.

Below are comparisons of Ackley's published data compared to pressure tested data.

49th edition of Lyman Handbook, the max load of a standard 30-30 with a 150 grain bullet and using 28 grs IMR 3031, the velocity is 2145 with a pressure of 38,000 cup.

In Ackley’s own handbook, the maximum load for a 30-30 AI for a 150 grain bullet using IMR 3031 is 38 grains for a velocity of 2700 fps.

From web data, the case capacity of the 30-30 Ackley vs the unImproved Winchester parent differ by 5% http://www.gmdr.com/lever/3030atext.htm yet here you have Ackley stuffing in 10 additional grains of powder and claiming a velocity increase of 125% over the standard 30-30.

The only way to get those sort of velocities through incredibly high pressures.


If you go to your 1957 Gun Digest, factory ballistics for the Winchester 180 grain Super Speed 30-06 is 2700 fps. Modern reloading data shows you can push a 180 Barnes with 55.7 grs IMR 4350 to 2685 fps, in close agreement with older factory data.

Ackley’s handbook gives reloading data of 61 grains IMR 4350 with a 180 grain bullet for a velocity of 3053 fps.

Noslers shows a max load for the 30-06AI of 56.5 grs IMR 4350 with a 180 gr bullet at 2835.

For the 30-06AI Ackley is putting 5.3 additional grains of powder in the case and claiming a velocity increase of 113% over the parent cartridge. His data is pushing bullets 218 fps faster than modern pressure tested ammunition of the same case.

The only way to do this is through incredibly high pressures.

Clearly anyone now, or then, who had access to a ballistic lab or even crude rules of thumb would be able to say that the only way Ackley was able to achieve those high velocities was through extremely high pressures.

Ackley was getting high velocities from his improved cartridges, cartridges which were being used in actions not designed for those levels of pressures. P.O. wanted to show that his high pressure cartridges did not increase bolt thrust so he ran a rigged experiment to protect his reputation and prove a bogus point, that is straight walled cases reduce bolt thrust and therefore his overpressure cases are safe to use in standard actions.

With perfectly clean chambers and clean cases there is parasitic friction between the case and chamber and that will lower bolt thrust disguising evidence of pressure. This does not mean you can just add more powder to the case as radial stresses on the barrel have not changed. Ackley totally ignores radial stresses on barrels. Barrels have their pressure, fatique limits and they don’t go away because of case taper.



When a barrel spilts in half at the chamber, the results are not pretty:
http://thegunzone.com/m1akb.html

When you read his M1894 Ackley Improved test, Ackley starts off by claiming that no one knows the design limits of actions, which is a lie. What is certain he did not know, but that does not mean someone does not know. Designers are not going to provide that information to the general public, and it shows the limits of a skilled machinist when it comes to matters of mechanical engineering design. Ackley does not know, does not know how to calculate such things, does not know that increasing pressures above design limits reduces the fatique life of parts, therefore he goes off in the direction if the action holds it for a couple of shots, the pressures must be safe.

P.O Ackley cartridges are very interesting and P.O’s test of a straight sided cartridge holding pressure without a breech block has been duplicated. The tester swabbed the chamber out with alcohol swabs between shots. The Ackley cartridge held. However the other cartridges, such as the 30-30, 35 Remington, blew out of the breech at 1900 fps. A 150 grain cartridge case flying at 1900 fps will go through both sides of most people's skulls.

Read carefully Boatright’s papers one of which he shows how a 308 case, in a clean chamber, can lock in and hold pressures by itself up to 25K psia.

Go to Jim Boatright’s web page.

http://www.thewellguidedbullet.com/

Look for yielding of the brass case in these studies

http://www.thewellguidedbullet.com/m...al_studies.htm

However once pressures go above 25K psia, Boatwright shows the brass case stretches and if not supported, the case head will blow off.

Regardless of taper, cases are made out of brass and will stretch. There may be bolt load reduction due to friction and stretching but it is inconsistent and not to be relied on in any way.

If you notice, P.O. Ackley never printed experiments conducted with a 30-06 or a similar high pressure cartridge. I am certain if he had reported the results, it would have been a litany of case heads blowing out the back of his lug less rifles at lethal velocities. It is likely he did, given all the actions and barrels he had around, I believe it is more credible that he ran tests in a number of Ackley Improved cartridges but only published the test that supported his theory. We see this all the time when reputations and money are at stake. If he did not, then he should have bought a lottery ticket because he was very lucky. We do know that Ackley and others did not conduct sensitivity tests, varying chamber finish, (chrome for example), powders, primers, or much of anything else. There are axial loads which must be taken into account and case taper does nothing to reduce them, in fact his straight taper reamers reduce barrel thickness when used in a standard barrel. I totally disagree with the conclusion that Ackley and others have drawn, that his cartridges reduce bolt thrust and therefore a user can just pour the coal into the cartridge and let fly.


Due to the unscientific and dangerous nature of the articles in his handbook, the dangerous and overpressure loading data, it is my opinion that the best place for his handbooks is in the delete folder.

[SHR970]

To add to Slamfire's post:

There are a plethora of loads that are published "as provided" by other "Smiths" including Dick Casull's Duplex and Triplex loads. He usually notes that but it is interesting to see where his loads and that of other diverge. There is a reason that many cartridges back then were called Wildcats.

And back then Hodgdon sold his powder in paper bags. YMMV.

[Marco Califo]

Well I got an email thanking me for my order. I personally have no intention to accept anybody's words as authoritative pronouncements, especially posts here. What I am after is to consider his ideas and innovations as fresh thinking and possibly scientific experimentation. I will say that I like what I have read about 223AI, and none of it was written by Ackley.

[Clark]

Almost everything in the gun culture is aimed at low information consumers, but Ackley and De Haas are exceptions.

It is good to know that there is still a demand.

[Marco Califo]

US Priority Mail
Nicely bound paperbacks with a cloth covered spine.

I did read/flip through volume 1 today, and it was not what I expected. I was really looking for the story and specific techniques for 233 AI, which is not mentioned as near as I can tell in V.I.

Ackley does not write in a technical/academic style; probably reflective of the time period. I will look at V 2 tomorrow.

[McShooty]

I was interested in Ackley’s work with the old 94. Apparently he fired a few of his .30-30 AI rounds after removing the breech block and there were no untoward effects. The rounds were held only by the bolt/lever assembly, indicating to POA that not much pressure was transferred to the bolt face. Granted this was not very scientific and he did not do it many times. This was consistent with some of my own experiences when, a while back, I tested a bunch of factory .30-30 ammo in five different rifles, two levers, two bolts, and a single shot. The firing usually produced empties in which the fired primers protruded a few thousandths from the case head. This indicated to me that even these tapered factory rounds were not putting much pressure on the bolt face. In Ackley’s comments on the strength of the 94 action I believe that he was expressing personal conviction based on his experience, and not lying.

Being a Krag fancier, I was also interested in Ackley’s work with old military actions. Krag fanciers, and other bolt action nuts, are often worried that a singular pressure event will shear off the bolt lug(s) and send the bolt back through the shooter’s skull. I don’t have my books where I am now located, but if memory serves, Ackley blew up a Krag action using a load of 50 grains of 2400. This Krag had been rebarreled and chambered for something other than .30-40. Be that as it may, the receiver ring was fractured and the barrel bulged, but the bolt stayed in the gun. Again, not very scientific or quantitative, but it gave me to feel that if my Krag were in good condition and I kept my loads in the appropriate pressure range, I probably would not have to leave the range with a bolt sticking out of an eye socket. So far that has been the case.

Ackley’s published data for his AI cartridges and cartridges of other wildcatter’s have been questioned by members of the shooting press for a long time. True, some of his reported results cannot be duplicated by others, but the AI wildcat philosophy is a good one, and it provides a simple, easily accomplished method of increasing the capacity of a standard case. This increase with the .30-30 AI is really remarkable. In other cases, the gain in performance is quite significant. See, for example, David Ward’s article “The 250 Ackley Improved Works” in Handloader’s Digest, 12th Edn. (1990) page 142. He got 100-gr bullets moving around 3200 fps with a variety of powders. Similar improvements were reported with other bullet weights, but not one figure for breech pressure is given in this article. Similarly, in my reading of Handloader Magazine, I find tables and tables of loads for various cartridges generated by the gurus of that publication, but seldom do I see a measured pressure. All one usually sees is the entry “maximum” in the column next to the velocity when the author feels the load should not be exceeded. But these folks are experts, right? They know how to read primers, sticky extraction, etc., and they always measure case head expansion with a micrometer, don’t they?

I think it is true that Ackley considered the primer to be the weakest link in the pressure chain. A blown primer was then, for him, the main indication of dangerous pressure, and so he often merrily increased powder charges until primers began to blow. Then he backed down and called it maximum. I don’t think he ever recommended a load that he thought would blow a primer in a reader’s gun. You may disagree with that practice and you can say, perhaps rightly, that it is not scientific enough, but that is how he worked. This empirical approach is still used by folks who carefully experiment with rifles and loads and then write about it. I am thankful for Ackley’s work. If you find copies of his two volumes for a reasonable price, buy them.

[Slamfire]

This indicated to me that even these tapered factory rounds were not putting much pressure on the bolt face.

If the friction between case and chamber is high enough and internal pressures are low enough so the side walls don't stretch, then what you say will happen and I don't believe it depends on taper at all.


It is not like Ackley put his opinions and handbook out in the vacuum of outer space. He had a lot more eyeballs looking, reading his publications than ever will see this thread. He got replies, smart people told him what was going on.

He never tested his theories with high pressure cartridges, or at least never published it if he did.

When someone only publishes data that proves their theory, out of a universe of tests that would prove other wise, either he was really lucky, or real selective.

[HiBC]

I can tell you one thing about the P.O.Ackley books that is important to know.There are many loads in there with familiar powders,like 4831 and 4895.These are military surplus powders from long ago,WW 2 vintage.

Do not use the provided data with modern powder.Trust me on this one!!

Use modern loading manuals,and if you are resurrecting an old wildcat,do not apply the data!Modern powders have significantly different max loads than old powders.
And,I'll have to say I'll stay loyal to Mr P.O Ackley.Other folks can disagree,thats OK.

[Clark]

Ackley gives source data.
Modern load books are lawyer-ed up recipes and made up wife's tales.
Here are some examples:

P.O. Ackley "Volume I Handbook for Shooters & Reloaders" 1962
If any measurable increase in the diameter of the rim of the case is noted, we consider that pressure excessive and reduce the charge about 6% and list it as a maximum load in our loading table. There is no reason why the handloader cannot use this same procedure himself and determine whether or not the loads he is using are safe and practical for use in his rifle...
Vernon D. Speer, February 6, 1958"
I actually use 4% margin for extreme powders for my hunting loads

P.O. Ackley 1966 "Handbook for Shooters and Reloaders Vol 2"
"..30 cal barrel pressure barrel was fitted to the test gun, but theneck and throat was enlarged to accept the 8mm bullet, with the boreremaining the standard 30 caliber. A Remington factory 30-06 cartridgewith the 150 gr bullet had been tested and previously gave 57,300 psi, for a velocity of 3030 fps. The the bullets were pulled from two more Remington 150 grain cartridges and were replaced with 8mm 150 grain bullets. To everyone's surprise, although the velocity was rather erratic, these loads averaged 2901 fps, with a pressure of 40,700 psi."
The .458" 405 gr bullets swage into my .406" 410 bore.

"Speer 12" 1994:
Some bolt-action and single-shot rifles have been chambered for this cartridge. Reloaders can sue spritzer-type bullets in these rifles, but should keep the weight to 150 grains or less. Heavier spritzer bullets cannot be drive fast enough in the 30-30 to expand reliably. We are occasionally asked if the 30-30 can be loaded to higher velocities in a modern bolt action like the Remington model 788. The answer is NO! The 30-30 case is an old design with relatively thin walls. Attempting to load "hotter" would risk a dangerous case failure.
I have tested many brands of 30-30 brass, and I have yet to find any brass like they describe. All the 30-30 brass I test will go to ~ 90kpsi Quickload before flowing. And that is in a break action 30-30.

"Sierra 4th" edition handgun reloading manual 1995
Utilizing a roller block system similar to that still used in the H&K series of semi automatic and selective fire rifles, the Vz52 is an extremely strong pistol. In recoil operated pistols, such as the Tokarev, starting loads shown should be considered a maximum.
I have tested many CZ52s and Tokarevs and I have yet to find any examples like they describe where the CZ52 is stronger. The weak link is not the locking system, it is the wide variation of RC hardness on the CZ52 barrels coupled with paper thin chamber wall of the CZ52 over the roller relief cut.

[Peter M. Eick]

As a collector of old load manuals, what I figured out is a bit of testing goes a long ways. Also a willingness to risk blowing up a gun helps!

I find Ackley's data is "enthusiastic" but seems to work in some of my guns. Some guns I have stopped early and some don't even get to the starting loads. You just have to try it and test carefully.

I treat it about like any data found on the web. Suspicious and to be tested carefully.

[McShooty]

I fear we are rapidly becoming a nation of forced conformity of thought.